By Eneojo Herbert Idakwo
The latest debate over Nigeria’s restructuring has opened an old and sensitive question about ethnicity, history, territory and the right of communities to determine their own political future.
At the centre of the controversy is a proposal attributed to the Igbo Leaders of Thought (ILT), which calls for a 10-region political structure and a United Igbo Region extending beyond the present South-East. The proposal includes Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo, prospective Anioma and Rivers State, as well as Igbo communities in parts of Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Benue, Cross River, Edo and Kogi. The ILT has also called for the temporary suspension of the 2027 general elections until the restructuring process is completed.
For the Igala Youth Leaders Assembly Worldwide (IYLA), however, the mention of Kogi in such a regional arrangement has crossed a line.
In a strongly worded rejoinder signed by Rt. Hon. M.M. Audu, Deputy Speaker of IYLA, Hon. Salifu Oguche Esq., Director of Legal Services, and Hon. Philip Ojochegbe Omattah, Director of Home Affairs, the organisation rejected what it described as an attempt to place Igala territory within a political arrangement to which the Igala people had not consented.
The response goes beyond a disagreement over administrative boundaries. It raises a fundamental question about who has the authority to determine the political identity and future of a people.
The argument over Kogi
IYLA argues that Kogi State, created in 1991 during Nigeria’s military era, cannot be treated as the complete territorial expression of the Igala nation.
That distinction is central to the organisation’s argument.
For IYLA, the modern state structure and the historical identity of an ethnic nation are two different things. The group therefore objects to any attempt to use present-day state boundaries as the final measure of Igala historical territory.
The organisation also argues that the Igala presence extends beyond present-day Kogi into communities located in several neighbouring states. Its rejoinder describes these areas as parts of an older Igala homeland that were separated through successive administrative arrangements.
These historical claims are matters that require careful scholarly examination because Nigeria’s ethnic and territorial history has been shaped by migration, conquest, colonial administration, boundary changes and the creation of new political units over many decades.
But the political point being made by IYLA is straightforward: whatever historical arguments may exist about the boundaries of different peoples, no community should be incorporated into a new political region without its participation and consent.
Restructuring and the question of consent
Interestingly, the disagreement does not appear to be over restructuring itself.
IYLA expressly says it supports genuine restructuring, resource control, regional policing and devolution of powers.
Its objection is to the principle by which territorial and political arrangements are determined.
The ILT has itself argued for self-determination for Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities and has proposed regional or nationwide referendums as part of determining the country’s future constitutional arrangement.
That position creates an important question for the present controversy.
If self-determination is a principle to be applied to ethnic nationalities, how should it operate where different ethnic communities inhabit the same geographical space or where historical claims overlap?
That question cannot be settled by a communiqué from one ethnic leadership group. It would require dialogue among the affected communities, historical evidence, constitutional processes and, where necessary, democratic consent.
This is precisely where the IYLA rejoinder places its emphasis.
Beyond the language of expansion
The language used by IYLA is unusually forceful. It describes the proposed inclusion of Kogi communities within the United Igbo Region as “territorial adventurism”, “historical revisionism” and an attempt to alter the political identity of another people without consultation.
Those are the organisation’s characterisations, rather than independently established facts.
The underlying dispute, however, is clear.
The ILT says its proposed region is based on Igbo communities and ethno-linguistic connections across existing state boundaries. Reports of the proposal make clear that the inclusion is framed around Igbo communities in parts of the affected states, rather than an assertion that every person or community in those states is Igbo.
IYLA nevertheless considers even that formulation unacceptable where Igala communities and territories are concerned.
The group insists that the Igala identity must not become collateral damage in a wider restructuring exercise.
The historical argument
Perhaps the most consequential part of the IYLA position is its insistence that present-day Nigeria’s map should not erase older histories.
The organisation describes the Igala nation as an ancient political civilisation with its own language, institutions, kingship and cultural traditions. It argues that colonial and post-colonial administrative boundaries divided communities that once belonged to wider historical networks.
This broader question deserves serious academic attention.
Nigeria’s present boundaries are relatively recent compared with the histories of the societies that existed within them. Colonial administration created and altered political boundaries, while successive Nigerian governments have continued to create states and local government areas.
Consequently, the existence of a modern state boundary does not automatically settle every historical question about identity, territory or cultural affiliation.
At the same time, historical claims alone cannot automatically determine contemporary sovereignty. Modern political boundaries, constitutional rights and democratic consent also matter.
That tension is at the heart of the current dispute.
The 2027 election question
The controversy is also taking place against the backdrop of the 2027 elections.
The ILT has called for the restructuring process to be completed before May 2027, with the elections temporarily put on hold and later conducted under a new constitutional arrangement.
That proposal adds another dimension to the debate.
Changing Nigeria’s constitutional structure is one question. Suspending a scheduled general election is another. Any such move would require a lawful constitutional and electoral process. The ILT’s proposal is therefore a political position, not an existing constitutional arrangement.
For IYLA, however, the more immediate issue is the territorial question.
Its message is that no restructuring exercise should produce a new political map by simply transferring communities from one proposed regional arrangement to another without their consent.
What the disagreement reveals
The dispute between IYLA and ILT exposes one of the most difficult problems in Nigeria’s restructuring debate.
How do you create regions around ethnic, linguistic and historical identities in a country where communities have lived beside one another for centuries, where migration has produced mixed settlements and where colonial and post-colonial boundaries rarely correspond neatly with indigenous territories?
There is no simple answer.
A restructuring process based entirely on present state boundaries could ignore historical identities. One based entirely on historical claims could produce competing territorial claims. One based solely on ethnic majorities could leave minorities vulnerable.
That is why consultation and consent are central.
For the Igala youth leaders, the message is that restructuring must not become another mechanism for determining the fate of smaller or differently organised communities from above.
Their demand is essentially for recognition of Igala agency in any conversation about the future political structure of Nigeria.
The language of the rejoinder may be combative, but beneath it lies a constitutional and political question worth serious national attention.
If Nigeria is to be restructured, who gets to draw the new map?
Who decides which communities belong together?
What happens where two peoples have competing historical claims?
And most importantly, will the people living in those territories have a meaningful voice in deciding their future?
Those questions extend far beyond Kogi and the Igala people. They go to the heart of the national restructuring debate.
For IYLA, the answer is unequivocal. The Igala people must be participants in determining any political arrangement that affects their identity, territory and future.
The organisation’s final message is therefore less about defending an existing map than demanding a voice in whatever map Nigeria eventually chooses.
